Proceedigs of the 15th IFAC Symposium on

Proceedigs
Information of the 15th
Control IFAC Symposium
Problems on
in Manufacturing
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
Information
Proceedigs
May Control
of
11-13, 2015. Problems
theOttawa,
15th IFAC in Manufacturing
Symposium
Canada on
May 11-13, 2015.
Information Ottawa,
Control Canada
Problems in Manufacturing
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada ScienceDirect
IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 598–603

Improving Ergonomics in the Meat Industry:

Improving Ergonomics in the Meat Industry:
A Case Study of an Italian Ham
Improving Processing Company
A Case Study ofErgonomics
an Italian Ham in theProcessing
Meat Industry:
Company
A Case Study of an Italian
Lucia Botti*.Ham
CristinaProcessing
Mora** Company
LuciaAlberto
Botti*. Regattieri**
Cristina Mora**
* Department of Management andCristina
Lucia Alberto
Botti*. Regattieri**Mora**
Engineering, University of Padova,
*Vicenza,
Department Italyof(Tel:Management
+39Alberto and Engineering,
Regattieri**
051 2093418; University of Padova,
e-mail: lucia.botti5@unibo.it)
*Vicenza,
Department Italyof(Tel:
** Department of +39
Management 051 2093418;
Industrial and e-mail:
Engineering,
Engineering, lucia.botti5@unibo.it)
University
University of Padova,
of Bologna,
** Department
Vicenza, Italy (Tel:of Industrial
+39 051 Engineering,
2093418; University
e-mail:
Bologna, Italy (e-mail: cristina.mora@unibo.it; alberto.regattieri@unibo.it) of Bologna,
lucia.botti5@unibo.it)
Bologna, Italy (e-mail:
** Department of cristina.mora@unibo.it;
Industrial Engineering, University alberto.regattieri@unibo.it)
of Bologna,
Abstract: MeatBologna, processing Italyis (e-mail: cristina.mora@unibo.it;
a labor-intensive industry dealingalberto.regattieri@unibo.it)
with manual handling of heavy loads of
Abstract:
meat at high Meat processing
frequency. Meatis a processing
labor-intensive workersindustry dealingpressure
are under with manual handling
to maintain of heavy
high rates of loads
work,of
meat
Abstract: at highMeat frequency.
processing Meatis a processing
labor-intensive workers are
industry under
dealing
performing arduous repetitive motions while keeping awkward postures. Ergonomic risk assessments pressure
with to
manual maintain
handling high
of rates
heavy of work,
loads of
performing
meat at high arduous
frequency. repetitive
Meat motions
processing while keeping
workers are awkward
under
reveal that manual material handling and repetitive tasks expose meat-processing workers to high postures.
pressure to Ergonomic
maintain highrisk assessments
rates of work,
reveal
physicalthat
performing manual
risk.arduous
This paper material
repetitive handling
motions
investigates theand
while
impact repetitive
keeping tasks
awkward
of automated expose meat-processing
postures.
technology onErgonomic workers
risk assessments
manual ham-deboning to lines
high
physical risk. This paper investigates the impact of automated technology
in the meat-processing industry. The aim is to study the effects of automation on the work systemhigh
reveal that manual material handling and repetitive tasks expose on manual
meat-processing ham-deboning
workers to lines
and
in the meat-processing
physical
layout, risk. Thisthe
analyzing paper industry.
investigates
economic andTheergonomic
aimimpact
the is to impact
study the
of automated effects of automation
technology
of semi-automatic on manual
ham on the
deboning work
lines.system
ham-deboning and
lines
The study
layout,
in
introduces analyzing
the meat-processing the economic
a non-safety industry.
cost model andTheergonomic
aim the
for impact
is tocomparative
study the of semi-automatic
effects of automation
and sensitive ham deboning
analysis on of lines.system
themanual
work The semi-
and study
and
introduces
layout, a
analyzingnon-safety
the cost
economic model
and for
ergonomicthe comparative
impact of and sensitive
semi-automatic
automatic ham deboning systems, including the cost of non-safety. The model is tested with a case study analysis
ham of
deboning manual
lines. and
The semi-
study
automatic
introduces
from an Italian ham deboning
a non-safety systems,
cost
ham processing model including
for thethe
company. costreference
of non-safety.
comparative
The and Theham-deboning
sensitive
manual model
analysisis tested
of linewith
manual is aintroduced,
case study
and semi-
from
automatic an Italian
ham ham
deboning processing
systems, company.
including theThe reference
cost of manual
non-safety.
together with a new layout proposal involving the adoption of a semi-automatic ham-deboning machine. The ham-deboning
model is tested line
with is a introduced,
case study
together
from an with
Italiana new
ham layout proposal
processing involving
company. the
The adoption
reference
Results reveal the positive impact of the semi-automatic ham-deboning system on the company'sof a semi-automatic
manual ham-deboning ham-deboning
line is machine.
introduced,
Results
together
profitability reveal
withand the
a new positive impact involving
layoutergonomics.
workers’ proposal ofAsthea consequence,
semi-automatic ofham-deboning
the adoptionautomateda semi-automatic
technology system leadsontothe
ham-deboning company's
economicmachine. and
profitability
Results reveal and workers’
the positive ergonomics.
impact
ergonomic benefits for workers, employers and customers. of Asthe a consequence,
semi-automatic automated
ham-deboning technology system leads onto economic
the company's and
ergonomic benefits
profitability for workers,
and workers’ employers
ergonomics. As aand customers. automated technology leads to economic and
consequence,
Keywords:
© 2015, IFAC
ergonomic Ergonomics,
(International
benefits for automation,
workers, Federation safety
employers analysis,
of Automatic
and risk assessment,
Control)
customers. Hosting byfood processing.
Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Ergonomics, automation, safety analysis, risk assessment, food processing.
Keywords: Ergonomics, automation, safety analysis, risk assessment, food processing.
has stabilized in the last 20 years (Kanerva 2013). This static
1. INTRODUCTION has stabilized in the last 20 years the (Kanerva 2013).
1. INTRODUCTION overall consumption increases pressure on Thisthe static
meat
Work activities in 1. overall
has consumption
stabilized in the
meat processing industry are both processing companies to adopt more efficient production
theINTRODUCTION increases
last 20 years the pressure
(Kanerva 2013).on the static
This meat
Work activities in the meat processing industry are both processing
overall
technically and physically demanding. Meat processing methods, e.g. automated technology. At the same time, companies
consumption to adopt
increases more
the efficient
pressure on production
the meat
technically
Work and
activities inphysically
the meat demanding.
processing
workers perform a wide range of tasks, involving manual Meat
industry processing
are both methods,
processing
automation e.g.
offersautomated
companies to
consistent technology.
adopt
benefitsmore for At the
efficient
safety same
and time,
production
hygiene
workers
handling perform
technically of and heavy a wide
loads,range
physically ofwhole
demanding.
e.g. tasks,carcasses,
involving
Meat processing high automation
atmanual methods,
of the meat offers
e.g. consistent
automated
processing benefits
technology.
work, forAt
providing safety
the and
highersamehygiene
time,
process
handling
workers of
perform heavy a loads,
wide e.g.
range ofwhole
tasks, carcasses,
involving at high
manual of the
automation meat
frequency. Common activities include lifting, moving, controllability and better working conditions (Wadie et al. processing
offers consistent work,
benefitsproviding
for safetyhigher
and process
hygiene
frequency.
handling Common
turning andoftwistingheavy heavy activities
loads, include
e.g. whole
carcasses among lifting,
carcasses, at high controllability
moving,
the workstations. of
1995,thePurnell, and
meat processing better2012,
Caldwell working
work,Purnell, conditions
providing Grimsby (Wadie
higher et al.
process
Institute of
turning
frequency.and twisting
Common heavy carcasses
activities among
include the workstations. 1995, Purnell,
Other tasks involve laborious and frequent movements to cut Further and Higher Education 2013). For example,et the
lifting, moving, controllability Caldwell
and better 2012,
working Purnell, Grimsby
conditions Institute
(Wadie of
al.
Other
turning tasks
and involve
twisting laborious
heavy and
carcasses frequent
among movements
the to
workstations. cut Further
1995, and
Purnell,
the carcass, whilst holding the loads. Such repetitive motions reduction of manual handling and the more efficient tool Higher
Caldwell Education
2012, 2013).
Purnell, For
Grimsby example,
Institute the
of
the carcass,
Other tasks whilst
involve holding
laborious the loads.
and Such
frequent repetitive
movements motions
to cut reduction
Further of
and
are a common cause of occupational diseases, as the well- sterilization in the clean slaughter line reduce the cross manual
Higher handling
Education and the
2013). more
For efficient
example, tool
the
are a common
the carcass,
known whilstcause
musculoskeletal of occupational
holding the loads.In
disorders. diseases,
Such as the
repetitive
addiction, the work sterilization
well-
motions reduction
contamination of inmanual
the clean
between handling slaughter
and the
carcasses, line reduce
more
improving the cross
efficient
the tool
food
known
are a musculoskeletal
common cause of disorders.
occupational In
environment is characterized by noise, humidity, cold and addiction,
diseases, as the
the work
well- contamination
sterilization
hygiene and in between
the
safety. clean
Robot carcasses,
slaughter
technology improving
line is reduce
widely the food
cross
used in
environment is characterized
known musculoskeletal
offensive odors. These disorders. by noise,
characteristics humidity,
In addiction,
make the coldwork
the and hygiene
meat and safety.
contamination
manufacturing between
industry, Robotwhen technology
carcasses,
productsimprovingis well-defined
are widelytheusedfood in
and
offensive
environment odors.
is These
characterized characteristics
by noise, make
humidity, the
cold meat
and manufacturing
hygiene
processing industry both physically and emotionally properly designed. Furthermore, the high investments in and industry,
safety. Robotwhen products
technology are
is well-defined
widely used and
in
processing
offensive industry
odors. These both physically
characteristics and
make emotionally
the meat properly
manufacturingdesigned.
demanding. As a consequence, slaughterhouse work is not an automation require industries with high production volumes Furthermore,
industry, when the
products high
are investments
well-defined in
and
demanding.
processing
attractive optionAs a consequence,
industry for both slaughterhouse
physically
prospective employees, andwork is not an automation
emotionally
particularly properly require industries
ensuring adesigned.
reasonable paybackwith
Furthermore, time. high
the Pork,production
high investments
poultry volumes
and lambin
attractive
demanding. option
As a for prospective
consequence, employees,
slaughterhouse work particularly
is not an ensuring
automation
young people. To improve the working environment and slaughtering are fully or partially automated, e.g. poultrya reasonable
require payback
industries time.
with Pork,
high poultry
production and lamb
volumes
young
attractive
hinder thepeople.
optionTo for
potential improve the in
prospective
insufficiency working
employees,
the labor environment
force,particularlyand slaughtering
the meat ensuring
lines work atarehigh
a reasonable fullyspeeds,
or partially
payback time.the
while automated,
Pork,lambpoultry e.g.and
productionpoultry
lamb is
hinder
young the potential
people. To insufficiency
improve the in the
working labor force,
environment the meat
and lines work
slaughtering
processing industry is automating the most labor-intensive partially automated (Madsen, Nielsen 2002, McMurray atarehigh
fullyspeeds,
or while
partially the lamb
automated, production
e.g. poultryis
processing industry
hinderofthethepotential
parts is automating
insufficiency
work process (Purnell, the
in the most labor-intensive
labor force,
Caldwell 2012,the partially
lines work automated
at high (Madsen,
speeds, whileNielsen
meat 2013). Nevertheless, several projects failed after trying to
Clarke, the 2002,
lamb McMurray
production is
parts of
processing the work
industry process
is (Purnell,
automating Caldwell
the most 2012, Clarke,
labor-intensive 2013).
partially
Nielsen & Madsen 2014). Automated meat processing automate the whole beef slaughtering process (Purnell 1998,Nevertheless,
automated several
(Madsen, projects
Nielsen failed
2002,after trying
McMurray to
Nielsen & work
parts of arduous
reduces the Madsen 2014).
process
repetitive Automated
(Purnell,
work, whilst Caldwell meat
replacing 2012,
some heavy automate
processing
Clarke, 2013). the whole
Madsen,Nevertheless,
Nielsen beef
2002), slaughtering
several
i.e. projects
fully process
automatic (Purnell
failed slaughtering
after 1998,
trying to
is
reduces
Nielsen arduous
& repetitive
Madsen 2014).work, whilst
Automated replacing
meat some heavy
processing Madsen,
automate
activities with less-intensive tasks, e.g. planning and more complex in beef and pork production, due to greater Nielsen
the whole 2002),
beef i.e. fully
slaughtering automatic
process slaughtering
(Purnell 1998, is
activities
reduces with
arduous less-intensive
repetitive work, tasks,
whilst e.g.
replacing planning
some and
heavy more
Madsen, complex
controlling the new technology (Nielsen, Fertin & dimensions and weight of the carcasses. Particularly, manual Nielsen in beef
2002), andi.e. pork
fully production,
automatic due to
slaughteringgreateris
controlling
activities withthe new technology
less-intensive tasks, (Nielsen,
e.g. Fertin
planning and& dimensions
more
Christensen 2005, Barbut 2014). Furthermore, the increasing workers typically perform ham-deboning work. complex and weight
in beef of
and the carcasses.
pork production,Particularly,
due to manual
greater
Christensen
international2005,
controlling the Barbut 2014).
new technology
competition Furthermore,
is pressuring (Nielsen,
the meat the processing
increasing
Fertin & workers
dimensions typically perform
and weight of ham-deboning work.
the carcasses. Particularly, manual
international
Christensen competition
2005, Barbut is pressuring
2014). Furthermore, the meat
the processing
increasing This
workerspaper focusesperform
typically on the ham-deboning
improvement of work.health and safety
industry to automate the meat process and develop more This paper focuses on the improvement of health and safety
industry
internationalto automate
efficient productioncompetition the ismeat
methods. process
pressuring
A recent andmeat
the
study ondevelop
theprocessing
Europeanmore of meat processing workers through ergonomics and
of
Thismeat
paper processing
focuses on the workers throughof ergonomics
improvement health and safety and
efficient
industry production
to automate methods.
the meatA recent
process
meat industry reveals that the per capita meat consumption studyand on the
develop Europeanmore automation. The following study introduces a comparative
automation.
of meat The
processingfollowingworkers study introduces
through a comparative
ergonomics and
meat industry
efficient productionreveals that theAper
methods. capita
recent study meaton the European and sensitive analysis of manual and semi-automatic ham-
consumption
and sensitiveThe
automation. analysis of manual
following study and semi-automatic
introduces a comparativeham-
meat industry reveals that the per capita meat consumption
2405-8963 © 2015, IFAC (International Federation of Automatic Control) Hosting and sensitive
by Elsevier analysis
Ltd. Allofrights
manual and semi-automatic ham-
reserved.
Copyright
Peer review©under
2015 responsibility
IFAC 630Control.
of International Federation of Automatic
Copyright © 2015 IFAC 630
10.1016/j.ifacol.2015.06.147
Copyright © 2015 IFAC 630
INCOM 2015
Lucia Botti et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 598–603 599
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada
deboning systems. The aim is to investigate the effects of
automation on the work system and layout, analyzing the
economic and ergonomic impact of semi-automatic ham
deboning lines. The comparative analysis includes a non-
safety cost model for the study of non-safety cost due to
accidents and injuries. The non-safety cost model is tested
with a case study from an Italian ham processing company.
The study of the existing meat processing plant and the work
system analysis reveal critical situations posing serious risks
to the workers’ safety and health. The study introduces the
new layout proposal for the ham production process,
replacing laborious manual ham-deboning activities with
automated technology. The remainder of this paper is as
follows. Section 2 presents the non-safety cost model,
analyzing direct and indirect non-safety costs. A brief
overview of the Italian Region Emilia Romagna meat
industry is introduced in Section 3, together with the detailed
description of an existing ham production plant and the
ergonomic risk assessment among deboning line workers.
Section 4 introduces the new layout proposal, while the
comparative and sensitive analysis is in Section 5. Finally,
Section 6 and Section 7 discuss the results, providing
directions for future developments.
2. NON-SAFETY COST MODEL
The following Section 2 introduces the non-safety cost
models for the economic evaluation of the both the manual
ham-deboning system and the semi-automatic ham-deboning
system. The non-safety cost model analyzes the cost of the
work system, 𝑐𝑐! , together with the cost of non-safety, 𝑐𝑐! .
Companies quantify the value of 𝑐𝑐! including labour costs,
plus investment, power supply and maintenance costs, in case
of semi-automatic ham-deboning systems. Non-safety cost 𝑐𝑐!
is due to the neglected investments in safety procedures and
equipment. Despite the high cost of accidents and injuries,
companies frequently neglect the cost of non-safety.
Workers, companies and community pay the consequences of
non-safety work. Particularly, occupational accidents cause
direct costs and indirect costs to the companies. The former
include quantifiable costs due to the accident event, e.g.
workers' compensation payments, medical expenses, and
costs for legal services etc. The latter are frequently
underestimated and include lost productivity, recruitment and
training of new employees, costs associated with lower
employee morale and absenteeism, etc. The following
Equation (1) shows the overall non-safety cost.
𝑐𝑐! = 𝑐𝑐! + 𝑐𝑐! ∙ 𝑛𝑛 (1)
Given 𝑛𝑛 as the number of injuries in the reference time
period, 𝑐𝑐! as the unit direct non-safety cost and 𝑐𝑐! as the unit
indirect non-safety cost, 𝑐𝑐! is the overall non-safety cost.
Studies show that the ratio of indirect costs to direct costs, 𝑘𝑘,
varies widely, from a high of 20:1 to a low of 1:1. The less
serious the injury, the higher the ratio of indirect costs to
direct costs (Business Roundtable 1982). As a consequence,
the value of 𝑘𝑘 is related to the type of injury, 𝑖𝑖. Furthermore,
statistics show the incidence rate of injuries as equal to ℎ
events every 100 meat-processing workers. The following
Equation (2) introduces the final formulation for the overall
non-safety cost.
631
𝑐𝑐! =
!
∙ 𝑡𝑡 ∙ !
 𝑤𝑤! ∙ 𝑐𝑐! ∙ 1 + 𝑘𝑘! (2)
!"" !!!
Given the number of worker 𝑤𝑤! exposed to the risk of injury
𝑖𝑖, the overall 𝑐𝑐! in the reference time period 𝑡𝑡 is as in the
Equation (2). The following Section 3 introduces the
overview of the Italian Region Emilia Romagna meat
industry, together with the detailed description of the
reference ham production plant and the ergonomic risk
assessment among deboning line workers.
3. MEAT PROCESSING PLANT ANALYSIS
3.1 Meat processing industry in Emilia Romagna, Italy
The pork and beef slaughterhouse and processing industries
play an important role in the economy of the Emilia
Romagna Region (Regione Emilia Romagna 2014). The
Local Occupational Health and Safety Agency (AUSL)
reports that meat processing is one of the most hazardous
industries in the Emilia Romagna Region. Meat and poultry
workers sustain a range of injuries, including hernia and
repetitive stress injuries. According to the American Bureau
of Labor Statistics, injuries in the American meat industry
declined from 29.5 per 100 full-time workers in 1992 to 14.7
in 2001, but the rate was among the highest of any industry
(United States Government Accountability Office 2005).
Nevertheless, Italian statistics show higher incidence rates,
reporting 24 injuries per 100 meat-processing workers (ASL
Mantova, USL Modena 2000).
Meat processing work typically requires manual workers to
keep up with the high speed of processing lines. Employment
policies and practices of this industry result in serious
physical and mental harm to meat processing workers,
preventing them from reporting injuries or drawing attention
to unsafe working conditions. Furthermore, several workers
are recent immigrants and face additional economic and
social pressures increasing their vulnerability in the
workplace (Monforton 2013). As a consequence, the meat
processing is one of the most hazardous industries, as it poses
a serious risk to workers’ safety and health.
3.2 Reference meat processing plant
The meat processing plant of this study is from an Italian
company situated in the Emilia Romagna Region. Figure 1
shows the ham processing steps in the reference meat
processing plant, highlighting the hazardous manual handling
activities. About twenty tractor trailers a day reach the plant,
where manual workers unload the hams with a 1,800 hams
per hour pace. Two different lines typically move the pork
legs towards different processes. The first line is for the ham
salting before the aging process and it is conventionally
called “salt line”. The latter is the “deboning line” and it
moves the pieces towards the speck and ham steak production
processes. The hams processed in the salt line are delivered to
further processing plant for the aging process, whilst ready-
to-eat specks and hams are packed as whole pieces or sliced
packs, then delivered all over the world. Salt line workers
trim about 1,300 hams per hour, whilst manual deboning line
workers prepare about 3,000 hams per hour. Particularly, the
hams for the deboning line are manually arranged on specific
hanging racks and moved towards the processing phases.
INCOM 2015
600 Lucia Botti et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 598–603
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada

Table 1. Ergonomic risk assessment scores for manual

deboning line workers
Workers
performing
OCRA NIOSH
Worker Activity Risk the same
Check-list LI
activity
[workers]
1 Rack loading MMH - 2.44 6
Conveyor
2 MMH - 2.44 6
loading
First
3 R 13.5 - 18
trimming
4 Deboning R 29.1 - 18
Second
5 R 11.5 - 24
trimming
6 Rack loading MMH - 1.75 18

The OCRA Check-list values in Table 1 refer to the most

Fig. 1. Ham flow in the reference meat processing plant.
The daily work shift is of eight hours a day for each worker,
while the plant runs two eight-hour shifts.
3.3 Working conditions
Hanging rack and conveyor loading, as well as trimming and
deboning work, are high-intensive activities. The former
require high force due to the manual material handling
(MMH), while the latter involve repetitive motions (R) of the
upper-limbs, mainly concerning the hands, the wrists, the
shoulders, but even the neck and the trunk. The International
(ISO 11228-1 2003) standard deals with MMH and is based
on the 1991 NIOSH Lifting Equation (Waters, Putz-
Anderson & Garg 1994). The NIOSH Lifting Equation is a
method to assess the ergonomic risk of MMH in activities
with repeated lifting. The Equation recommends a weight
limit for lifting activities, defining the NIOSH Lifting Index
as the ratio of the actual load weight to the recommended
weight limit. The OCRA Check-list is the risk assessment
method for the ergonomic risk assessment of upper limbs
(ISO 11228-3 2007). Such tool is used for the initial
screening of the exposure to biomechanical overload of the
upper limbs associated with manual R. The OCRA Checklist
uses an analysis system based on pre-assigned numerical
values for critical risk factors, e.g. lack of recovery time,
movement frequency and force. Table 1 shows the results of
the ergonomic risk assessment through OCRA Check-list for
repetitive tasks and NIOSH method for MMH, of six
deboning line workers (Occhipinti 1998, ISO 11228-1 2003,
ISO 11228-3 2007). The OCRA Check-list and NIOSH
Lifting Index (LI) values in Table 1 are comparable with the
ergonomic risk assessment scores for all the workers at each
workstation of the reference deboning line.
stressed arm, for each worker. The threshold limit value for
acceptable risk is 7.5. High OCRA Check-list values (greater
than or equal to 22.6) characterize high-risk repetitive tasks
(Occhipinti 1998, ISO 11228-3 2007), i.e. deboning activities
pose high threat to the health and safety of workers. The
NIOSH LI threshold limit value for acceptable risk of MMH
is 1 (ISO 11228-1 2003), i.e. hanging rack and conveyor
loading pose serious threat to the health and safety of
deboning line workers (see in Table 1). Both Manual
Material Handling (MMH) and Repetitive tasks (R) are
performed in harsh working conditions, due to cold climate
and spatially restricted working environment. Furthermore,
workers are forced to keep up with the speed of processing
lines, at overcrowded workstations in uncomfortable
conditions. The analysis of the reference manual deboning
line highlights high-risk situations, posing a direct threat to
workers’ safety and health. The following Section 4
introduces the semi-automatic system proposal, including
both manual workers and automated technology for
automatic deboning.
4. SEMI-AUTOMATIC DEBONING SYSTEM
The following Section 4 outlines the new ham flow proposal
and the feasibility analysis, after the introduction of an ham-
deboning machine for deboning activities.
4.1 Pork ham automatic deboning technology
The proposed pork ham automatic deboning system is the
Mayekawa HAMDAS-R in Figure 2. The deboning process is
outlined in the following Figure 3. This leg deboning
machine performs the automatic deboning of 500 hams per
hour. After auto-loading pig's thigh deboned hipbone, the
ham-deboning machine detects right and left legs. As in
Figure 3, the system includes the whole bone length
measuring function that enables to react the difference
between calf bone and thighbone.

Fig. 2. Mayekawa HAMDAS-R Fig. 3. Mayekawa HAMDAS-R ham-deboning process.

(www.mayekawa.com).

632
INCOM 2015
Lucia Botti et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 598–603 601
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada

The vertical multi-joint robot cuts meat along the bone. Figure 1, six ham-deboning machines are necessary to
Deboned hams and bones are the process outputs (see in guarantee the daily demand of deboned products. The semi-
Figure 3). The system ensures high deboning performances, automatic deboning system allows several workers to
i.e. the average meat loss on the bones is 60g. The meat perform safer operations than manual material handling and
weight loss after the semi-automatic deboning process is repetitive tasks of the reference manual ham-deboning
minimum, as the hams move through a limited number of process, e.g. machine supervision and deboned ham quality
manual workstations. The machine specifications are in the check.
following Table 2. Table 3. Comparison of manual ham-deboning process
Table 2. Mayekawa HAMDAS-R specifications versus semi-automatic ham-deboning system
Maximum 500 legs/hour with 3 pre-cut machines Semi-
Capacity Manual
Maximum 170 legs/hour with 1 pre-cut machines Variable automatic
process
W137.8"xL429.1"xH118.1" with 3 pre-cut machine system
Dimensions Daily demand of deboned hams [products] 3,000 3,000
W137.8"xL307.8"xH118.1" with 1 pre-cut machine
Electricity Number of automatic machines [machines] 0 6
AC 3 phases, 240 V – 50 kW Number of workers required per shift [workers] 90 56
supply
Air 2,400 l/ min dry air at 7-12 barG Manual workers per shift [workers] 90 54
supply Dew point 5°C at 5barG Workers performing MMH per shift [workers] 30 42
Water supply 60°C, 2-3 barG-10 l/min Workers performing R per shift [workers] 60 12
Weight Approximately 13,500 kg As a consequence, the overall number of workers exposed to
The ham-deboning machine requires conventional electricity the risk of manual handling is lower for the semi-automatic
and air supply to work. Water supply is necessary for system (see in Table 3). The overall number of manual
cleaning operations, while no additional groundwork is material handling workers is higher in the semi-automatic
necessary for the installation on conventional industrial system proposal since twenty-four workers prepare the hams
floors. for the auto-load robots. Furthermore, the ham-deboning
machine performs strenuous repetitive tasks, which were
4.2 New layout proposal
previously required to manual workers. The following Table
The new layout proposal includes the semi-automatic ham- 4 shows the ergonomic risk assessment scores of five
deboning machine. The semi-automatic deboning line deboning line workers at the semi-automatic deboning line.
proposal is in the following Figure 4.
Table 4. Ergonomic risk assessment scores for workers at
the semi-automatic deboning line
Workers
performing
OCRA NIOSH
Worker Activity Risk the same
Check-list LI
activity
[workers]
Ham
1 MMH - 1.21 24
preparing
2 Supervising - - - 2
3 Trimming R 11.5 - 6
Quality
4 R 7.5 - 6
Fig. 4. Semi-automatic deboning line proposal with the control
Mayekawa HAMDAS-R ham-deboning machine. 5 Rack loading MMH - 1.75 18

Truck-unloading workers manually lay down the hams on the
conveyor, as in the traditional process (see in Figure 1 and
Figur 4). The robot auto-loads and detects right or left legs,
replacing the pre-deboning manual material handling
activities. The vertical multi-joint robot starts the deboning
process and cuts meat along the bone. After the automatic
deboning, the ham is free from the damages caused by knife
and ready for further trimming operations. The new layout
proposal in Figure 4 is not fully automated. The ham-
deboning machine requires seven workers to prepare the
hams and supervise the deboning process. Particularly, four
workers prepare the hams before the cutting phase, while two
workers check the quality of deboned hams and perform final
trimming operations. Finally, one worker supervises up to
three working machines.
4.3 Manual ham-deboning process versus semi-automatic
ham-deboning system
The following analysis outlines the comparative analysis of
the semi-automatic deboning system proposal. Table 3
outlines the comparison of the manual ham-deboning process
and the semi-automatic ham-deboning system. Considering
the ham flow data of the reference meat processing plant in
Particularly, trimming and quality control workers perform
both the tasks at the same workstation. The OCRA Check-list
and NIOSH Lifting Index (LI) values in Table 4 are
comparable with the ergonomic risk assessment scores for all
the workers at each workstation of the semi-automatic
deboning line. The OCRA Check-list mean value reduction is
45%. The new layout proposal involves autonomous robots
lifting the hams, while workers prepare the pork legs on the
conveyor (see in Figure 4). As Table 1 and Table 4 show,
preparing activity is less intensive than hanging rack loading
or conveyor loading, i.e. the NIOSH LI reduction is 29%.
Supervising and quality control tasks do not expose workers
to ergonomic risk of manual handling, while trimming and
hanging rack loading are high-intensive activities, as in the
reference manual system (see in Table 4). The semi-
automatic ham-deboning system requires 80% less manual
workers preforming R, compared with the reference ham-
deboning process.
5. COMPARATIVE AND SENSITIVE ANALYSIS
The following comparative analysis aims to compare the
reference ham-deboning system and the semi-automatic ham-
deboning proposal. The analysis investigates the impact of
non-safety cost on the hourly cost of the ham-deboning

633
INCOM 2015
602 Lucia Botti et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 598–603
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada

system. The cost analysis of the semi-automatic system
includes fixed and variable costs, due to adoption of the semi-
automatic machines. The fixed investment cost is based on a
10-year life, 4% of interest rate, and 3,520 hours of work per
year and machine. Variable costs include labor, energy and
maintenance costs. Particularly, maintenance costs are due to
the cutting tool replacement, e.g. blades and knives, and no
additional maintenance is required. The comparative analysis
includes the non-safety cost model in Section 2 for the non-
safety cost analysis. The Occupational Safety and Health
Agency’s (OSHA) $afety Pays Program estimates the values
of 𝑐𝑐! and 𝑘𝑘 for occupational injuries. The following analysis
includes the values of 𝑐𝑐! and 𝑘𝑘 for injuries related to MMH
and R. Particularly, hernia injury is associated with MMH,
while common R injury is carpal tunnel syndrome. The
OSHA estimates the average 𝑐𝑐! of hernia injury as equal to
22,548 $, the average 𝑐𝑐! of carpal tunnel syndrome as equal
to 30,000 $ and 𝑘𝑘 as equal to 1.1 for both such injuries. The
value of 𝑛𝑛 depends on the number of accidents occurred in
the reference time period. Statistics show the incidence rate
as equal to 24 accidents every 100 meat-processing workers
(ASL Mantova, USL Modena 2000). As a consequence, the
expected number of accidents in the reference time period is
435 for the manual ham-deboning system and 271 for the
semi-automatic system. The following Table 5 shows the
impact of the non-safety costs on the results of the
comparative and sensitive analysis.
Table 5. Comparative and sensitive analysis
Variable S1 S2 S3
Productive capacity
3,000 hams/h 500 hams/h 5,000 hams/h
[hams/h]
Accidents with the
manual ham-deboning 436 53 750
system [accidents]
Accidents with the
semi-automatic ham-
deboning system
271 48 455
[accidents]
Non-safety cost of the
manual ham-deboning 19,907.48 k€ 2,433.14k€ 34,285.10 k€
system [k€]
Non-safety cost of the
semi-automatic ham- 10,895.91 k€ 1,945.70 k€ 18,289.56 k€
deboning system [k€]
Non-safety cost saving
9,011.57 k€ 487.44 k€ 15,995.53 k€
[k€]
Hourly cost saving
+22.98 % -6.42 % +28.20 %
[%]*
The three Scenarios in Table 5 show the non-safety cost
analysis and the impact of non-safety cost on the hourly cost
of the ham-deboning system. The hourly cost saving is shown
as percentage because of the company’s request to cover the
actual hourly cost of the ham-deboning systems. Scenario 1
shows the comparative analysis of the reference case study.
The semi-automatic ham-deboning system in Scenario 1
leads to 9,011.57 k€ non-safety cost saving. The hourly cost
of the semi-automatic ham-deboning system is lower than the
hourly cost of the manual ham-deboning system, i.e. the
percentage hourly cost saving is +22.98% (see in Table 5).
Scenario 2 and Scenario 3 show the non-safety cost analysis
varying production capacity and dimensions of the ham-
deboning system. Scenario 2 reflects a small-sized meat-
processing company with 500 hams/h production capacity,
while Scenario 3 reflects a large meat-processing company
with 5,000 hams/h production capacity (see in Table 5). The
non-safety cost of the manual system is lower than the non-
safety cost of the semi-automatic system, in Scenario 2.
Conversely, Scenario 3 shows high non-safety cost saving
due to the semi-automatic system, when companies’
production capacity is high. The larger the company
dimension, the higher the impact of non-safety cost saving
and the hourly cost saving with the semi-automatic ham-
deboning system (see in Table 5). The following Section 6
and Section 7 discuss the results of the comparative and
sensitive analysis, providing directions for future research.
6. DISCUSSION
The semi-automatic ham-deboning proposal includes the
adoption of automated technology, replacing manual workers
for high-risk ham-deboning activities. The comparative and
sensitive analysis in Section 4 shows the impact of non-safety
cost on the hourly cost of the ham-deboning system. Three
Scenarios describe the non-safety cost of the system, varying
production capacity and dimensions of the ham-deboning
system. Results show the positive impact of the semi-
automatic ham-deboning system on workers’ ergonomics and
on the company's profitability. The new layout proposal leads
to lower hourly cost of the ham-deboning system, compared
with the reference ham-deboning system (see Scenario 1 in
Table 5). The comparative and sensitive analysis shows the
impact of non-safety cost, varying production capacity and
dimensions of the ham-deboning system. Results show that
the larger the company dimension, the higher the non-safety
cost saving and the hourly cost saving with the semi-
automatic ham-deboning system (see in Table 5). Despite the
initial investment for the machines purchase, the semi-
automatic system ensures both short- and long-term benefits
for workers, employers and customers. Furthermore, the
ham-deboning machine accomplishes high-risk cutting and
handling activities, while workers perform safer operations,
e.g. machine supervision and deboned ham quality check.
The following Figure 5 shows the results of the comparative
analysis from the ergonomic perspective.
Fig. 5. Ergonomic risk assessment results comparison
The semi-automatic ham-deboning system requires less
manual workers than the manual ham-deboning process
(Figure 5). Labor costs and direct non-safety costs are lower,
i.e. automation drastically reduces the need for MMH and R
workers, leading to a significant decrease in injury and
accident rates. Figure 5 shows the ergonomic effects of the
manual ham-deboning process and the semi-automatic ham-
deboning system on the workers’ health and safety.
Particularly, the semi-automatic ham-deboning system
requires 80% less manual workers preforming R, compared

634
INCOM 2015
Lucia Botti et al. / IFAC-PapersOnLine 48-3 (2015) 598–603 603
May 11-13, 2015. Ottawa, Canada
with the reference ham-deboning process. The OCRA Check-
list mean value reduction (45%) in Table 4 confirms the
reduction of the exposure to R of the upper limbs, with the
semi-automatic ham-deboning system. The ergonomic risk
assessments results for workers performing MMH show safer
working conditions with the semi-automatic ham-deboning
system. Despite the higher number of workers performing
MMH, the NIOSH LI mean value reduction (29%) with the
semi-automatic ham-deboning system is dramatic. The robot
technology further ensures high quality of the final products.
As a result, the final product is standard-sized and devoid of
cutting damages due to knives and blades. Furthermore,
product hygiene and security improve as well, as the contact
with human hands is drastically reduced.
7. CONCLUSIONS
Work activities in the meat processing industry are both
technically and physically demanding. The ergonomic risk
assessment among deboning workers of an Italian ham
processing company confirms high ergonomic risk due to
manual handling tasks. The reference manual ham-deboning
line is introduced, together with the semi-automatic system
proposal. The semi-automatic deboning system includes the
adoption of automated technology, replacing manual workers
for high-risk manual activities, e.g. manual material handling
of heavy pork legs and repetitive deboning tasks. The
comparative and sensitive analysis shows the impact of non-
safety cost on the hourly cost of the ham-deboning system.
The non-safety cost analysis reveals the positive impact of
the semi-automatic ham-deboning system on the company's
profitability. Particularly, results show that the new layout
proposal leads to lower hourly cost of the semi-automatic
ham-deboning line. Furthermore, automated technology
improves the product quality, hygiene and security, leading to
economic and ergonomic benefits for workers, employers and
customers. Future developments of this study include the
analysis of further layout re-design proposals, aiming to
support manual workers through automation and improving
ergonomics in the meat processing industry.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The current paper is based on investigations within the
research project Banca delle Soluzioni, funded by the
Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale of Bologna. The Azienda
Unità Sanitaria Locale of Modena collaborates in the research
activities. Mayekawa Group has provided the HAMDAS-R
ham-deboning machine information. The authors are grateful
for this support.
REFERENCES
ASL Mantova & USL Modena 2000, I profili di rischio nella
macellazione: identificazione e misura degli effetti,
Servizi di Medicina Preventiva e Igiene del Lavoro.
Barbut, S. 2014, "Review: Automation and meat quality-
global challenges", Meat Science, vol. 96, no. 1, pp.
335-345.
Business Roundtable 1982, Improving Construction Safety
Performance: A Construction Industry Cost
Effectiveness Project Report, New York, NY.
Clarke, R., Nielsen, J.U. & Madsen, N.T. 2014, "Automation
in the meat industry. Cutting and Boning" in
Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences (Second Edition), eds.
635
M. Dikeman & C. Devine, Academic Press, Oxford, pp.
33-42.
ISO 11228-1 2003, System of standards for labor safety.
Ergonomics. Manual handling. Part 1. Lifting and
Carrying. General requirements.
ISO 11228-3 2007, System of standards for labor safety.
Ergonomics. Manual handling. Part 3. Handling of low
loads at high frequency.
Kanerva, M. 2013, Meat consumption in Europe: issues,
trends and debates, Universitat Bremen, Bremen.
Madsen, K.B. & Nielsen, J.U. 2002, "Automated meat
processing" in Meat Processing, eds. J. Kerry, J. Kerry
& D. Ledward, Woodhead Publishing, , pp. 283-296.
McMurray, G. 2013, "Robotics and automation in the poultry
industry: current technology and future trends" in
Robotics and Automation in the Food Industry, ed. D.G.
Caldwell, Woodhead Publishing, , pp. 329-353.
Monforton, C. 2013, Harsh working conditions in US poultry
and meatpacking plants violate human rights, OAS
Commission to review the claim. Available:
http://scienceblogs.com/thepumphandle/2013/06/25/har
sh-working-conditions-in-us-poultry-and-meatpacking-
plants-violate-human-rights-oas-commission-to-review-
the-claim/ [2014, December].
Nielsen, J.U., Fertin, C. & Christensen, H. 2005, "Up-to-date
equipment for pig slaughtering, cutting and boning and
their influence on product safety", Technologija Mesa,
vol. 46, pp. 62-63-66.
Occhipinti, E. 1998, "OCRA: a concise index for the
assessment of exposure to repetitive motions of the
upper limbs", Ergonomics, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 1290-
1311.
OSHA, OSHA's $afety Pays Program. Available:
www.osha.gov/dcsp/smallbusiness/safetypays/estimator
.html [2015, March, 11].
Purnell, G. & Caldwell, D.G. 2012, Robotics and automation
in meat processing, Woodhead Publishing Limited.
Purnell, G. 1998, "Robotic equipment in the meat industry",
Meat Science, vol. 49, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. S297.
Purnell, G. & Grimsby Institute of Further and Higher
Education 2013, "Robotics and automation in meat
processing" in Robotics and Automation in the Food
Industry, ed. D.G. Caldwell, Woodhead Publishing, ,
pp. 304-328.
Regione Emilia Romagna 2014 , Agricoltural and food
production. The role of the Region Emilia Romagna.
Available: http://agricoltura.regione.emilia-
romagna.it/produzioni-agroalimentari/temi/allevare-
animali [2014, 11/4].
United States Government Accountability Office 2005,
Workplace Safety and Health. Safety in the meat and
poultry industry, while Improving, could be further
strengthened.
Wadie, I., Maddock, N., Purnell, G., Khodabandehloo, K.,
Crooks, A., Shacklock, A. & West, D. 1995, "Robots
for the meat industry", Industrial Robot, vol. 22, no. 5,
pp. 22-26.
Waters, T.R., Putz-Anderson, V. & Garg, A. 1994,
Applications Manual for the Revised NIOSH Lifting
Equation, Cincinnati, Ohio: NIOSH.